Question: Was the trial court correct in denying Rose's motion for change of venue?

Liz took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and went to care for her elderly grandmother in State B. Approximately six months later, while Liz was walking to her car in the parking lot of Jack's Market in State B, Rose, a resident of State C, struck Liz with her car. In Rose's car were three friends from State C who were traveling through State B with Rose. The friends told the police officer called to the scene of the accident that Liz was reading a magazine as she walked across the parking lot and was therefore not watching where she was going. Liz told the police officer that she had just walked out from behind a large concrete column in the parking lot when Rose's car struck her.

Liz sued Rose and Jack's Market in federal court in State B. Liz's complaint sought $60,000 in damages against each defendant. It also asked the court for an injunction ordering Jack's Market to tear down the concrete column in the parking lot.

Jack's Market moved to dismiss Liz's complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion.

Rose then moved for a change of venue of the action to federal court in State C on the grounds that she is a citizen of State C and that it would be a hardship for her and her witnesses to travel to State B for trial. The court denied Rose's motion for a change in venue Rose then filed a notice of appeal of the court's denial of her venue motion. The appellate court dismissed Rose's appeal.